August 2019 - CPWG - lists.icann.org

At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG)
by ICANN Policy Calendar 16 Aug '19

16 Aug '19

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y67t96s4 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/vYbkBg Zoom Room: <https://icann.zoom.us/j/332162804> https://icann.zoom.us/j/332162804 / Meeting ID: 332-162-804 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

2 1

NEW DOODLE: GeoNames Survey Discussion Call
by ICANN At-Large Staff 16 Aug '19

16 Aug '19

Dear All, Please complete the ADHOC Doodle poll to schedule the GeoNames Survey Discussion Call for the early week of 19 August 2019. Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/aus49vxr98evmr4p I have enabled the time zone so that it can be changed to your zone. This doodle will close asap. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yeşim Nazlar

1 0

Amended DOODLE - weekly CPWG call rotation
by ICANN At-Large Staff 16 Aug '19

16 Aug '19

Dear All, Please see AMDENDED DOODLE with some additional options. If you have already completed first Doodle, please complete for these additional slots. https://doodle.com/poll/7wc6yt38bsrqbwwa Reminder to complete Doodle with GENERAL availability, not just for next week, We are trying to find THREE rotating times. Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella From: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Date: Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 22:00 To: "cpwg(a)icann.org" <cpwg(a)icann.org> Cc: At-Large Staff <staff(a)atlarge.icann.org> Subject: Important DOODLE - weekly CPWG call rotation Dear All, Please complete the Doodle poll to find the THREE most suitable ROTATING times for the weekly CPWG calls. https://doodle.com/poll/7wc6yt38bsrqbwwa NOTE – please provide your GENERAL availability, NOT just for next week. Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella

1 1

Subsequent Procedures Update: String Similarity, snapshot as at 16 Aug 2019
by Justine Chew 16 Aug '19

16 Aug '19

Dear all, Reference is made to the *SubPro Updates workspace <https://community.icann.org/x/6a_jBg>*. As this point, the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is expected to commence on 22 Aug its deliberation on the public comments received to its Initial Report on the topic of String Similarity. Here is a *snapshot on the topic of String Similarity as at 16 Aug* <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01.%20SubPro%20S…> . I suspect there may be further prep to be done by GNSO staff / SubPro WG Leadership for this topic closer to that SubPro WG call of 22 Aug 3:00 UTC, so there could well be a need for an updated snapshot next week. We will see. As for CCT recommendations, Recommendation #35 is picked up under this topic. It implores consideration for adoption of new policies to avoid potential for inconsistent results in string confusion objections. I wish you all a pleasant weekend ahead. Justine Chew -----

1 0

Subsequent Procedures Update: Reserved Names, Closed Generics & Registrant Protections, updated snapshot as at 16 Aug 2019
by Justine Chew 16 Aug '19

16 Aug '19

Dear all, Reference is made to the *SubPro Updates workspace <https://community.icann.org/x/6a_jBg>*. The Subsequent Procedures PDP WG commenced deliberations on the public comments received to its Initial Report on Reserved Names at its call of 15 Aug and will continue to do so on 19 Aug 20:00 UTC. Again, no CCT recommendations were picked up by SubPro WG for any of these 3 topics but SubPro WG has now additionally noted a number of outstanding items on the topic of Reserved Names. Here is an *updated snapshot on the topics of Reserved Names, Closed Generics & Registrant Protections as at 16 Aug <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/02.%20SubPro%20R…>* . Cheers, Justine Chew ----- On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 14:38, Justine Chew <justine.chew(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Dear all, > > Reference is made to the *CPWG SubPro Updates workspace > <https://community.icann.org/x/6a_jBg>*. > > At this point, the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is expected to start > deliberating on the public comments received to its Initial Report on these > 3 topics on 8 Aug 20:00 UTC > > Here is a *snapshot on the topics of Reserved Names, Closed Generics & > Registrant Protections as at 7 Aug* > <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01.%20SubPro%20R…> > . > > No CCT recommendations were picked up by SubPro WG for these 3 topics. But > comments/queries are welcomed. > > Thanks, > Justine Chew > ----- > >

1 0

Geo Names Survey
by Jonathan Zuck 15 Aug '19

15 Aug '19

Folks, As promised, here’s a survey so we can get a sense of how we (and EVERYONE we know) would like these scenarios to resolve themselves. Once we know the outcomes we want, we can work backwards to policy recommendations. PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE forward this survey to everyone in the At-Large community. RALO leaders, forward to your ALSs and ask them to forward to their members. Let’s see what kind of turnout we can get from this, shall we? Jonathan Zuck | Executive Director | Innovators Network jzuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:jzuck@innovatorsnetwork.org> | O 202.420.7497 | S jvzuck | [Image] Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org>

4 6

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective
by Alan Greenberg 15 Aug '19

15 Aug '19

Nadira, One of the problems we face is that we continually use the term "Internet Users" or "Internet End-Users". I am guilty of it myself. But that is NOT the term used in the ICANN Bylaws to describe our focus audience. The Bylaws talk about "Individual Internet users". The word "Individual" is key, because it says our focus is on Internet Users (pretty much everyone who touches an Internet connected device) who are "Individuals" - those who are using the Internet purely on their own "individual" behalf. It excludes those who are using the Internet on behalf of an employers, or as part of running a business. Does this help? Regards, Alan At 07/08/2019 04:31 AM, Nadira Alaraj wrote: I created a New thread to the discussion of a definition of end-users avoiding the distraction of the flow of the new gtlds application support thread. @Evan, thank you for sharing your perspective onthe end-user definition. >From my perspective still many words need to be defined as well such as "everyone" "provides services" because they are so broad and include many things. Better to wait for Jonathan to bring it up (I also copied Jonathan email here) so everyone's voice could be heard. Best wishes, Nadira ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Jonathan Zuck < JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Date: Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 10:48 Subject: Re: [GTLD-WG] [CPWG] New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it? To: Maureen Hilyard < maureen.hilyard(a)gmail.com<mailto:maureen.hilyard@gmail.com>>, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj(a)gmail.com<mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com> > Cc: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Iâ€™ve been working on that very thing and hope eventually to bring it up on the CPWG call. ðŸ˜‰ On Wed, Aug 7, 2019, 10:49 Evan Leibovitch <evan(a)telly.org<mailto:evan@telly.org>> wrote: On Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 02:24, Nadira Alaraj <nadira.araj(a)gmail.com<mailto:nadira.araj@gmail.com>> wrote: Please can anyone lead me to the definition of "end-users" from the At-large perspective? What has guided me well is simply this: "An Internet end-user is anyone who obtains or provides services, or otherwise communicates with others, using the Internet." Maybe it could be refined a bit but this works for most instances I can think of. - Evan I don't want to dwell into what I heard At-large end-users could be because I might be misinformed. Having such definition makes the many discussions I've been reading since I joined At-large of greater focus. If there are no end-user definition for AT-large, I suggest to add this on the agenda item for ATLAS III. Best wishes to all, Nadira _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

10 31

Important DOODLE - weekly CPWG call rotation
by ICANN At-Large Staff 14 Aug '19

14 Aug '19

Dear All, Please complete the Doodle poll to find the THREE most suitable ROTATING times for the weekly CPWG calls. https://doodle.com/poll/7wc6yt38bsrqbwwa NOTE – please provide your GENERAL availability, NOT just for next week. Thank you. Kind regards, Gisella

1 0

Apology noted - Geo Names Survey
by Gisella Gruber 14 Aug '19

14 Aug '19

Dear Christopher, Your apology has been noted! Kind regards, Gisella On 14/08/2019, 15:33, "registration-issues-wg on behalf of cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu" <registration-issues-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of cw(a)christopherwilkinson.eu> wrote: Please note my apologies. I am on the WT5 call (there are others of our number.) (How did we get into this clash-?) CW > On 12 Aug 2019, at 20:47, Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> wrote: > _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_… ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_… ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_… ) and the website Terms of Service (https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__www.icann.org_privacy_… ). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff 14 Aug '19

14 Aug '19

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y67t96s4 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/vYbkBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/332162804 / Meeting ID: 332-162-804 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space:https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

4 3

REMINDER / Meeting invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff 14 Aug '19

14 Aug '19

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 14 August 2019 at 14:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y67t96s4 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/vYbkBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/332162804 / Meeting ID: 332-162-804 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space:https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

2 1

Request to mailing list GTLD-WG rejected
by gtld-wg-owner＠atlarge-lists.icann.org 14 Aug '19

14 Aug '19

Your request to the GTLD-WG mailing list Posting of your message titled "Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] - ISO 4217" has been rejected by the list moderator. The moderator gave the following reason for rejecting your request: "Non-members are not allowed to post messages to this list." Any questions or comments should be directed to the list administrator at: gtld-wg-owner(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org

1 0

NEW DOODLE: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call
by ICANN At-Large Staff 12 Aug '19

12 Aug '19

Dear All, Please complete the Doodle poll to schedule the At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call for Wednesday, 14 August 2019. Doodle: https://doodle.com/poll/u3nt3aukmfusberd I have enabled time zone so that it can be changed to your zone. This doodle will close on Monday, 12 August 2019. Thank you. Kind Regards, Yeşim Nazlar

1 1

Re: [CPWG] [registration-issues-wg] [GTLD-WG] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective
by Alan Greenberg 11 Aug '19

11 Aug '19

At 10/08/2019 04:00 PM, Nadira Alaraj wrote: Thanks to all who did engage in this email thread. The bylaws is clear of making At-large to be the voice of Individual non-registrant end-users. The Bylaws do not restrict us to non-registrants. However, I did experienced the challenges that At-large community are facing while encouraging retired active individual end-user to get engaged into At-large. Although initially they were curious when they took the online ICANN learn course for newcomers, but when they started browsing At-large and ICANN website they got lost and they were honest telling me that At-large is not of their interested and can't be of contributor in spite they are experience in corporate governance. There are two things at play here. 1) The At-Large web and wiki presence is daunting and needs real, focused work; 2) ICANN has a narrow focus and may well not be for everyone, no matter how good or technical they are, or how well we do (someday??) present ourselves. Following Evan's perspective and to solicit input from individual end-user is not easy. The challenge here is to rewriting the issues for survey design in a very simplified way to be understood by the layperson. I'm not sure. I think our challenge is to put things in the terms that a relatively small number of people, each of whom UNDERSTAND their individual user perspective, can contribute. A world like ours always needs champions to speak of behalf of their larger constituencies. But still there is a need to activate the role of the RALOs to channel the voice of Individual end-uses whether they're registrant or not through the intended planned design when At-large was founded. Because so far, I don't see this is happening. And that is the substance of Issue #2 of the At-Large Review - and work is just about to begin on that! Alan I also second Jonathan's thoughts of his last email. Wishing those observing Al-Adha a Happy Eid. Best wishes to all, Nadira On Sat, Aug 10, 2019, 20:31 Jonathan Zuck < JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: Olivier, While I agree thus conversation has gone off the rails to some degree, I'm sympathetic to Evans initiative to return the ALAC to first principles: advocating for the interests of individual end users and, when there's a conflict between the interests of registrants and non-registrants, we side with the non-registrants. That's really the whole ball of wax. How we determine those interests is a separate and important question for which we are searching for answers, the recent pole being a relevant experiment. But we have to STOP relitigating those first principles or we will never get our act together. We do, indeed, need to have the discipline to let things go that are already being said or are not directly relevant to the end user experience around the world. Just my thoughts. Jonathan Jonathan Zuck Executive Director Innovators Network Foundation www.Innovatorsnetwork.org<http://www.Innovatorsnetwork.org> ________________________________ From: Olivier MJ CrÃ©pin-Leblond <ocl(a)gih.com<mailto:ocl@gih.com>> Sent: Saturday, August 10, 2019 4:19:44 AM To: Evan Leibovitch <evanleibovitch(a)gmail.com<mailto:evanleibovitch@gmail.com> >; Jonathan Zuck < JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> Cc: CPWG <cpwg(a)icann.org<mailto:cpwg@icann.org>> Subject: Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] [registration-issues-wg] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective Dear Evan, I must admit that I really do not understand what you are trying to achieve by huffing and puffing on the CPWG mailing list. You appear to be engaged in a venture to question the ALAC's legitimacy in anything it does - but this debate was past after the second At-Large review and it's too late to keep on going back to the stone age and remember the Wars of Religion. As for the ALAC being a laughing stock, if they can do better, I invite these people rather than laughing in their armchair, to come in and help us draft comments that have an impact, just like the incredibly talented people that have done so recently in this Working Group and that are spending a considerable amount of time contributing to the ICANN multi-stakeholder policy processes. When it comes to NCUC, NPOC, At-Large, the BC, the IPC and other constituencies, there are many people who are active in more than one of these constituencies. Unless you are aiming to run a system that is a totalitarian regime, I would suggest that you allow that to happen. The world is not just black or white, left or right, hot or cold, nice or nasty. Let people be free to help where they can and not put them in a box/jail. Now let's please get back to discussing policy rather than whipping ourselves into a frenzy. Kindest regards, Olivier On 10/08/2019 03:49, Evan Leibovitch wrote: On Fri, 9 Aug 2019 at 20:55, Jonathan Zuck < JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org<mailto:JZuck@innovatorsnetwork.org>> wrote: I think it's not about who we are but what interests we endeavor to represent. The NCUC only concerns themselves with registrants. That was my original point -- That there is a body already within ICANN representing the interests of individual registrants, in theory leaving ALAC as the body uniquely positioned to speak for non-registrant end-users. That the body charged with representing registrants is remiss in its duty should not be ALAC's problem, yet the resulting spillover also causes ALAC to be remiss in ITS duty. The logic should be easy because there are more than 4 billion Internet users and about 350 million domains in play total. So even assuming only three domains per registrant (and we know that is very far from reality), registrants are outnumbered by non-registrants by more than 30 to 1. Yet ALAC has a problem because of its high proportion of self-selectred Internet experts and insiders, most of whom either own a domain or have evaluated the need to have one. Our own makeup is heavily skewed against the non-registrant 95% because most in At-Large simply don't share their experience. The original theory was that the ALSs were going to be the way through which non-registrants would be able to participate in large numbers, but that intent has absolutely failed as most ALSs have turned out to be self-interested bodies such as ISOC and Internauta chapters or tech-focused NGOs. (Isn't that what the Review concluded?) Such participation brings people with needed skill and passion, but without the perspective of the 95% of the world who will likely never own a domain. And without a credible plan for speaking on behalf of the non-registrant 95%, ALAC's own credibility is at risk (arguably it's already shot and needs a reboot). A few immediate remedies are possible while things are sorted out: The NomCom is directed to make its ALAC selections non-registrants as at least a token effort at balance. ALAC outreach needs to find people who are interested in end user issues who have no interest in buying domains. ALAC itself must commit to understand its issues through a non-registrant lens before choosing to comment on them. Longer term ALAC needs to engage in public surveys and research to guide its actions (and reactions) rather than its own elitist sense of what is right for end users. I daresay that the priorities of the billions wrt what is needed from ICANN differs widly from ALAC's current guesses. - Evan _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org<mailto:CPWG@icann.org> https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ CPWG mailing list CPWG(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/cpwg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. _______________________________________________ registration-issues-wg mailing list registration-issues-wg(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/registration-issues-wg _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service ( https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

3 3

Re: [CPWG] Discussion: End-users definition from At-large perspective
by Alan Greenberg 10 Aug '19

10 Aug '19

I have largely stayed out of this discussion but it seems timely to intervene. On NCSG/NCUC and who can or should join: The NCSG Charter says that organizational members must have at least one domain name. Curiously it does not need to be a gTLD, but could be a ccTLD name. For individuals, having a domain name is one of the criteria, but there are other criteria which do not require having a domain name. Note that there are 3 criteria for individuals - the NCUC Bylaws do not make it clear if a prospective member must meet any one of the three or all three, but the NCSG Charter makes it very clear that any one of the three is sufficient. Moreover, the NCUC Bylaws prohibit an ALAC member joining NCUC under its criteria 2 (but there seems to no such restriction if you have a domain name! The NCUC has stated very clearly that they represent users, BUT have also said that their main focus is on privacy, freedom of speech and human rights in general. They are not limited to those topics but that IS their prime focus. So if these are areas that you believe you want to focus on in ICANN, then the NCSG/NCUC is definitely a prime home for you. The NCSG has a mandate that is far wider. Note that the NCUC is one constituency within NCSG (the other being NPOC). But you can be an NCSG member without belonging to either the NCUC or NPOC, and in fact that is the case for some At-Large people who are also NCSG members. On the definition of "end user": I addressed this in an earlier message but will repeat it here. I think the question is not relevant. Although we frequently talk abut whether an issue is of interest to end users, that is NOT the term that is used in the ICANN Bylaws in respect to the ALAC and the At-Large Community. The Bylaws talk about "Individual Internet users". The word "Individual" is key, because it says our focus is on Internet Users (pretty much everyone who touches an Internet connected device) who are "Individuals" - those who are using the Internet purely on their own "individual" behalf. It excludes those who are using the Internet on behalf of an employers, or as part of running a business. On Individual Users VS Registrants: This is a debate that has been raised periodically and I thought we had settled it LONG ago. The vast majority of Individual Internet users have not and will never register a domain name. That being said, there are many Individual users who are domain name registrants, and where their needs as registrants do not conflict with the overall needs of non-registrant users, then we are here to represent them. Where their ARE conflicts, we support the needs of the majority of Individual users who are not registrants. A number of years ago, one of our At-Large members raised the issue of the rights of a registrant related to domain name expiration. Specifically are they given sufficient warning that their name(s) will expire and if they miss that date, can they still retain their domain name? At the time, registrar practices coupled with registrant practices often made it difficult to know when a name would expire and if the date passed, regaining control of the domain might well be impossible. It was relevant to us because: - it is the individual working alone who is often the registrant who looses a name at expiration - they do not have the corporate infrastructure to support them and e-mail addresses (used for registrar contact) tend to change more frequently. - Individual users, along with other users, depend on the web sites and resources they use - if they suddenly disappear, they are disadvantaged. - There was no downside for the majority of (non-registrant) Individual users if we had better expiration rules. As a result, the ALAC requested that the GNSO initiate a PDP on expiration rules. The GNSO agreed and there was a PDP which resulted in the Expiration Registration Recovery Policy (ERRP) whichs provided enhanced publicly available information on expiration, predictability of fees, better notification when a name expires (even if your e-mail address changed!) and a guaranteed period after expiration in which to renew the name. The NCUC did participate, but through a single person who was not particularly knowledgeable in or involved with the issue (although a very interesting person in his own right!) We had good support from the Business Constituency and strong opposition from the registrars. I think that this is a excellent example of how we can relate to individual registrants without diluting our focus on Individual users. Alan

2 1

Re: [CPWG] [GTLD-WG] Geo Names Scenarios
by mail＠christopherwilkinson.eu CW 10 Aug '19

10 Aug '19

Good afternoon: Noted. Having looked at the 'final' version, I noticed some concessions to my comments, some of which have been recalled by John McCormac. Thankyou. However, I think we should have gone further. It still sounds rather corny to be referring hypothetically to existing gTLDs. Also, regarding .bluenile, ALAC must be consistent with existing TM law. If we accept that one local TM can block - or obtain - a global monopoly TM, then geo-names could become lost on a large scale. This whole issue merits a thorough discussion which has never taken place in At Large. Regards CW > El 5 de agosto de 2019 a las 22:15 Jonathan Zuck <JZuck(a)innovatorsnetwork.org> escribió: > > > Thanks John. I guess the point is that the applicant guidebook is being rewritten and the rules regarding permission, etc. are being revisited and we're just trying to build a consensus position her in the At-large, to the extent possible, so that we might comment. Our attempt to just "share views" in Morocco was a bit of a mess so we came up with the ideas of scenarios. I'll look at your specific comments and try to incorporate the ones that make sense. Thanks again! > Jonathan > > > On 8/5/19, 1:12 PM, "GTLD-WG on behalf of John McCormac" <gtld-wg-bounces(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org on behalf of jmcc(a)hosterstats.com> wrote: > > On 05/08/2019 20:07, Jonathan Zuck wrote: > > *Folks,* > > > > On Wednesday’s call, I hope to circulate the link to a survey, for > > everyone to spread to the community, regarding Geo Names scenarios. In > > an effort to get past the rhetoric and down to brass tacks, as we say, > > we’re looking at “outcomes” that we may or may not like. If we we are > > able to identify the outcomes we won’t and don’t want, we can set about > > crafting policy recommendations, if not for subproc than at least the > > board, that would most likely lead to those outcomes. Hope that makes > > sense. Remember the questions we will aks about each scenario are: > > > > 1. Do you believe this scenario to be likely, given the status quo? > > 2. How satisfied would you be with this scenario? > > > > It looks very much like an angels and pinheads situation with a lot of > hypotheticals. Some of the existing Geo NGTs are not doing well and it > might be better to examine the reasons for this before going off on a > tangent about hypothetical situations that may or may not affect a > second round of NGTs. > > On item 1: people in many areas outside the US consider their local > ccTLD to be the first choice TLD. Having millions of domains in a geo > database might be impressive but the Internet, and most people in those > regions will just ignore it and continue using their local ccTLD. (By > the way, .NAME is a real gTLD so it might better to use .EXAMPLE for > examples.) > > On item 2: Duplication. Capital city names are not necessarily unique. I > think that the guys from .BERLIN explained the process of having to get > permission from the city council/authorities before applying for the NGT. > > On item 3: Doesn't the Catholic Church have .CATHOLIC? > > On item 4: More rules and regulations for non-existent NGTs? Go look at > the structure of the .US ccTLD. It was intended to have a kind of > geographical and regulatory subdomains structure. The problem is that > TLDs tend towards simplicity. Brand names and business names matter in > most TLDs and trying to impose subdomains is not a good approach because > people generally ignore them. Worst of all, it creates confusion for the > NGT and opens the possibility of multiple pricing tiers. > > The assumptions in this hypothetical seem to be based on the > non-existence of ccTLDs as a direct competitor to Geo NGTs. > > Regards...jmcc > -- > ********************************************************** > John McCormac * e-mail: jmcc(a)hosterstats.com > MC2 * web: http://www.hosterstats.com/ > 22 Viewmount * Domain Registrations Statistics > Waterford * And Historical DNS Database. > Ireland * Over 516 Million Domains Tracked. > IE * Skype: hosterstats.com > ********************************************************** > > --- > This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. > https://www.avg.com > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on. > > _______________________________________________ > GTLD-WG mailing list > GTLD-WG(a)atlarge-lists.icann.org > https://atlarge-lists.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gtld-wg > > Working Group direct URL: https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/New+GTLDs > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

New gTLD Applicant Support - improve it, or scrap it?
by Olivier MJ Crépin-Leblond 10 Aug '19

10 Aug '19

Dear colleagues, on last week's CPWG call, a particularly vigorous discussion started regarding gTLD subsequent procedures, with a particular focus on applicant support. The ALAC has been on record in the past round as fully supporting the concept and implementation of an Applicant Support program for applicants that might not otherwise have the funding capability to pay the hefty application fee required when filing an application for a new gTLD. For your information, please be so kind to find a few Statements from the ALAC about Applicant Support: Publish Date 1. Title 2. 31 Jul 2014 Report: Supporting the Domain Name Industry in Underserved Regions <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/6711> Topic(s): *Contracted Party Agreements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/contracted-party-agreements>, Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Reviews/Improvements <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/reviews-improvements>* 3. 10 Jan 2012 New gTLD Applicant Support Program: Financial Assistance <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8041> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 4. 20 Dec 2011 ALAC Statement on the Preliminary Support Implementation Program <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8071> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 5. 4 Aug 2011 GAC/ALAC Statement on Applicant Support <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8261> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* 6. 7 Dec 2010 Cartagena Statement of the African ICANN community about the Support for new gTLD applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8581> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>* 7. 24 Jun 2010 African ICANN Community Publishes Statement on Support for New gTLD Applicants <https://atlarge.icann.org/advice_statements/8711> Topic(s): *Engagement <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/engagement>, New gTLDs <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/new-gtlds>, Operations/Finances <https://atlarge.icann.org/topics/operations-finances>* **On last week's call -- see https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg we heard several calls for changing this long standing ALAC line and whilst some opposed changing the At-Large position, there was also significant support for changing it. In short, the argument that was developed against Applicant Support was that the financial support proposed to applicants only covered the application fee that was only a small subset of the costs of running a gTLD - so one could argue that applicants risk being set-up to fail. Second, there was concern that there were so few applications for applicant support in the previous ground and thirdly, the guidelines for accepting support applications were so tight to reduce the possibility of gaming, that they were unachievable. I recommend that you read the appropriate transcript that is linked from the agenda on https://community.icann.org/x/a7KjBg -- but I would urge those who developed their points, in favour of continuing the ALAC view to improve applicant support and those in favour of scrapping Applicant Support, to make their points known here. My paraphrased summary definitely doesn't do justice to all of the points that were put across during the call so I apologise if I have not gotten its interpretation all correct. The conversation was just too large and too fundamental for the small amount of time we had available on the call. Kindest regards, Olivier

13 41

Redrafted statement on Root Server System Comment
by Alan Greenberg 09 Aug '19

09 Aug '19

As discussed and decided on the CPWG call yesterday, we need to have a final version of the comment to submit. Bastiaan was given an opportunity to redraft te statement but presumably he is on vacation and did not reply. According, as requested at the end of the meeting, I did a redraft and posted it on the Wiki - https://community.icann.org/x/2IajBg. For your convenience, both redline and clean copies are attached here. Alan

2 1

ACTION/CPWG by 11 August - Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project
by Evin Erdogdu 08 Aug '19

08 Aug '19

Dear All, As per the AI from yesterday's CPWG, please view the draft ALAC statement on Proposed Definition of Name Collisions and Scope of Inquiry for the Name Collisions Analysis Project<https://community.icann.org/x/7KSjBg> at its workspace for comment: https://community.icann.org/x/7KSjBg. Please comment on the workspace as necessary by Sunday, 11 August at 23:59 UTC. Thank you, Evin

1 0

IMPORTANT WEBINAR / At-Large Briefing Webinar on GDD Operational Preparation on Thursday, 08 August 2019 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff 07 Aug '19

07 Aug '19

********************* Español después de la version en inglés Version francaise en bas du mail ********************* Dear All, The ALAC will hold an At-Large Briefing Webinar on the topic of GDD Operational Preparation for the Next Round of New gTLDS on Thursday, 8 August at 19:00 UTC. This will be an opportunity to learn more on the initial planning that ICANN is carrying out for the next round of New gTLDs as well as hear the latest At-Large perspective. Presenters include Trang Nguyen<https://www.icann.org/profiles/281>, VP, Strategic Programs and Jonathan Zuck<https://community.icann.org/x/Dg0FBQ>, Co-Chair of the At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group<https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB>. This webinar will include French and Spanish interpretation. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/y5v3run2 The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/q4PkBg Zoom URL: https://icann.zoom.us/j/480354165 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> ************************************ Estimados todos, El ALAC llevará a cabo un seminario web de información general sobre el tema de la Preparación Operativa de GDD para la próxima Ronda de Nuevos gTLDS el jueves 8 de agosto a las 19:00 UTC. Esta será una oportunidad para aprender más sobre la planificación inicial que ICANN está llevando a cabo para la próxima ronda de Nuevos gTLD, así como escuchar la última perspectiva de At-Large. Los presentadores incluyen a Trang Nguyen<https://www.icann.org/profiles/281>, Vicepresidente de programas estratégicos y Jonathan Zuck<https://community.icann.org/x/Dg0FBQ>, copresidente del grupo de trabajo de Políticas Consolidadas de At-Large<https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB>. Este seminario web incluirá interpretación en Francés y Español. Para zonas horarias: https://tinyurl.com/y5v3run2 La Agenda (sera actualizada) y detalles de la llamada se encuentran en: https://community.icann.org/x/q4PkBg Zoom URL: https://icann.zoom.us/j/480354165 ID de conferencia para ADIGO Audio EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Numero Toll-free (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Otros numeros toll-free: https://www.adigo.com/icann Si requiere un dial- out por favor contactar At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Gracias. Saludos cordiales, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge> ****************************** Chers tous, L’ALAC organise un webinaire de Briefing At-Large sur la préparation opérationnelle de GDD pour la prochaine série de nouveaux gTLD, le jeudi 8 août 2019 à 19:00 UTC. Ce sera l’occasion d’en savoir plus sur la planification initiale que l’ICANN est en train de réaliser pour la prochaine série de nouveaux gTLD, ainsi que d’entendre la dernière perspective d’At-Large. Les présentateurs seront Trang Nguyen, Vice-Président, Programmes Stratégiques<https://www.icann.org/profiles/281>, et Jonathan Zuck<https://community.icann.org/display/atlarge/Jonathan+Zuck+SOI>, coprésident du groupe de travail sur la politique consolidée At-Large<https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB> (CPWG). Ce webinaire sera interprété en français et espagnol. Pour d’autres horaires : https://tinyurl.com/y5v3run2 L’ordre du jour (en ours de mise à jour) et les détails de l’appel peuvent être consultés ici: https://community.icann.org/x/q4PkBg Zoom URL: https://icann.zoom.us/j/480354165 ID de conference pour l’Audio ADIGO EN: 1638 ES: 1738 FR: 1838 Numéros d’accès ADIGO: https://www.adigo.com/icann Si vous avez besoin d’être connecté à l’appel, veuillez contacter le personnel At-Large: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Merci. Cordialement, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

2 2

**REMINDER** Meeting Invitation: At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call on Wednesday, 07 August 2019 at 19:00 UTC
by ICANN At-Large Staff 07 Aug '19

07 Aug '19

Dear All, The next At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Call is scheduled for Wednesday, 07 August 2019 at 19:00 UTC for 90 mins. For other times: https://tinyurl.com/yyq9x3zw The agenda (to be updated) and call details can be found at: https://community.icann.org/x/EIHkBg Zoom Room: https://icann.zoom.us/j/870980586 <javascript:;> / Meeting ID: 870-980-586 ADIGO Conference Bridge: EN: 1638 ES: 1738 Toll-free access number (US and Canada): 800 550 6865 Other toll-free numbers: https://www.adigo.com/icann At-Large Consolidated Policy Working Group (CPWG) Wiki Space: https://community.icann.org/x/jYDpB If you require a dial-out please contact At-Large staff at: staff(a)atlarge.icann.org<mailto:staff@atlarge.icann.org> Thank you. Kind regards, At-Large Staff ICANN Policy Staff in support of the At-Large Community Website: atlarge.icann.org<https://atlarge.icann.org/> Facebook: facebook.com/icann<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge>atlarge<https://www.facebook.com/icannatlarge> Twitter: @<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>ICANNAtLarge<https://twitter.com/ICANNAtLarge>

1 0

Re: [CPWG] [ccwg-internet-governance] WIPO: STANDING COMMITTEE ON THE LAW OF TRADEMARKS, INDUSTRIAL DESIGNS AND GEOGRAPHICAL INDICATIONS (SCT/42); GENEVA 4-7/11
by cw＠christopherwilkinson.eu 07 Aug '19

07 Aug '19

Good afternoon: May I suggest that CPWG on Geo-names later today also take note of this development. We have known for some time that this was ‘in the works’, and it has now finally come to light. Regards CW > On 7 Aug 2019, at 09:27, Nigel Hickson <nigel.hickson(a)icann.org> wrote: > > Colleagues > > Good morning; as noted on the CCWG IG Call yesterday, WIPO is discussing, inter-alia, a proposal cconcerning the Protection of Country Names and > Geographical Names of National Significance in the DNS. > > The link for the meeting is at https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=50450 <https://www.wipo.int/meetings/en/details.jsp?meeting_id=50450> > while the agenda for the meeting is at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_42/sct_42_1_prov.pdf <https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_42/sct_42_1_prov.pdf>. > > The relevant document to be discussed (SCT/41/6) is at https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_41/sct_41_6.pdf <https://www.wipo.int/edocs/mdocs/sct/en/sct_41/sct_41_6.pdf> though it is likely an updated draft will be discussed in November. > > Best > > Nigel > > > _______________________________________________ > ccwg-internet-governance mailing list > ccwg-internet-governance(a)icann.org <mailto:ccwg-internet-governance@icann.org> > https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance <https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/ccwg-internet-governance> > > _______________________________________________ > By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy <https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy>) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos <https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos>). You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0

Subsequent Procedures Update: Reserved Names, Closed Generics & Registrant Protections, snapshot as at 7 Aug 2019
by Justine Chew 07 Aug '19

07 Aug '19

Dear all, Reference is made to the *CPWG SubPro Updates workspace <https://community.icann.org/x/6a_jBg>*. At this point, the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is expected to start deliberating on the public comments received to its Initial Report on these 3 topics on 8 Aug 20:00 UTC Here is a *snapshot on the topics of Reserved Names, Closed Generics & Registrant Protections as at 7 Aug* <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01.%20SubPro%20R…> . No CCT recommendations were picked up by SubPro WG for these 3 topics. But comments/queries are welcomed. Thanks, Justine Chew -----

1 0

Subsequent Procedures Update: Application Change Requests, snapshot as at 6 Aug 2019
by Justine Chew 07 Aug '19

07 Aug '19

Dear all, Reference is made to the *CPWG SubPro Updates workspace* <https://community.icann.org/x/6a_jBg> Here is a *snapshot of where the Subsequent Procedures PDP WG is at in its deliberations on the topic of Application Change Requests as at 6 Aug 2019* <https://community.icann.org/download/attachments/111390697/01A.%20SubPro%20…> . SubPro WG will started deliberating on the public comments received to its Supplemental Initial Report on 8 Aug at 20:00 UTC. There were no CCT recommendations picked up by SubPro WG for this topic and I personally don't think there is anything controversial that we need to be concerned about. But comments/questions are welcomed nonetheless. Thanks, Justine Chew -----

1 0

Subsequent Procedures WT5 on Geonames: A proposal from geoTLD group to change the existing AGB string contention resolution for geonames
by Justine Chew 06 Aug '19

06 Aug '19

Dear all, I have been asked to bring this proposal from the geoTLD group for At-Large/ALAC's consideration. In short, the proposal seeks to change the existing AGB string contention resolution procedure to recognise rights to non-capital city name strings under applicable national law. While I expect the details, intricacies (read: varying circumstances) and text changes (I suspect there will be) will be discussed at the next WT5 call (on 7 Aug 2019, 20:00 UTC), I understand it to propose in principle that: - Where there is a contention set for a non-capital city name string, priority would be given to the applicant that intends to use the non-capital city name string for geographic purposes provided the applicant is based in a country where national laws exist to protect such names like in Switzerland and Germany. Recall that any applicant that wishes to apply for/use a non-capital city name for geographic purposes is subject to the preventative protection mechanism (i.e. must obtain a letter of support or non-objection from the relevant government or local authority) - Where there is more than one applicant that intends to use the same non-capital city name string for geographic purposes and they all have obtained the requisite letter of support or non-objection from their respective government or local authority, priority would be given to the applicant whose application is intended to serve the non-capital city with the larger or largest population size. I shall attempt to include this on the agenda of today's CPWG Call (on 7 Aug 2019 at 19:00 UTC). Justine ----- ---------- Forwarded message --------- From: Katrin Ohlmer | DOTZON GmbH <ohlmer(a)dotzon.com> Date: Wed, 7 Aug 2019 at 01:28 Subject: Re: [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 7 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC To: gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org> Dear All, as announced, I would like to provide the proposal of the geoTLD group on the topic 4 „Changes to string contention resolution“: *Update Applicant Guidebook, Chapter 2.2.1.4.4 with:* If an application for a string representing a geographic name is in a contention set with applications for identical strings that have not been identified as geographical names, the string contention will be resolved using the string contention procedures described in Module 4. *Update Applicant Guidebook, Module 4. with:* A// In case there is contention for a string where one application intends to use the string as a non-capital city name or designated the TLD to targeting it to a geographic meaning, preference should be given to the applicant who will use the TLD for geographic purposes if the applicant for the geoTLD is based in a country where national law gives precedent to city and/or regional names. *RATIONALE: This would reflect national law e.g. in countries like Switzerland and Germany, where e.g. city names have more rights that holders of the same name.* B// If there is more than one applicant for an identical string representing a geographic name, and the applications have requisite government approvals, the applicant with the larger no of inhabitants will prevail over the smaller one. As the criteria „size“ has been used in the CPE criteria, it is apparently a well-accepted criteria. *RATIONALE: This would reflect the current rule of the Applicant Guidebook „capital city has priority over smaller city.* I’m happy to explain our thoughts until our call, individually or on the list. Kind regards Katrin DOTZON GmbH - digital identities for tomorrow Akazienstrasse 28 10823 Berlin Deutschland - Germany Tel: +49 30 49802722 Fax: +49 30 49802727 Mobile: +49 173 2019240 ohlmer(a)dotzon.consulting www.dotzon.consulting Besuchen Sie uns auf LinkedIn <https://de.linkedin.com/company/dotzon-gmbh>. DOTZON GmbH Registergericht: Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg, HRB 118598 Geschäftsführer: Katrin Ohlmer Sitz der Gesellschaft: Akazienstrasse 28, 10823 Berlin *Von:* Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 <gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5-bounces(a)icann.org> *Im Auftrag von *Emily Barabas *Gesendet:* Dienstag, 6. August 2019 12:14 *An:* gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org *Betreff:* [Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5] Proposed Agenda - Work Track 5 - 7 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC Dear all, Please find below the proposed agenda for the Work Track 5 call tomorrow, 7 August 2019 at 20:00 UTC for 90 minutes: 1. Welcome/Agenda Review/SOI Updates 2. Closure of Discussion on Languages/Translations (see attached document summarizing proposals that have been discussed on recent calls) 3. Closure of Discussion on Non-AGB Terms 4. Closure of Discussion on Changes to String Contention Resolution 5. Final review of public comments - Proposals 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 37 - Please see the public comment summary document beginning on page 32: https://docs.google.com/document/d/1rsyxCEBd6ax3Rb_w1kms_E9n29XL1_lw3Yp9XQ4… [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_docume…> . - For reference, full text of comments is available at: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WKSC_pPBviCnbHxW171ZIp4CzuhQXRCV1NR… [docs.google.com] <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_spread…> 1. AOB Kind regards, Emily *Emily Barabas *| Policy Manager *ICANN* | Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers Email: emily.barabas(a)icann.org | Phone: +31 (0)6 84507976 _______________________________________________ Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 mailing list Gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5(a)icann.org https://mm.icann.org/mailman/listinfo/gnso-newgtld-wg-wt5 _______________________________________________ By submitting your personal data, you consent to the processing of your personal data for purposes of subscribing to this mailing list accordance with the ICANN Privacy Policy (https://www.icann.org/privacy/policy) and the website Terms of Service (https://www.icann.org/privacy/tos) You can visit the Mailman link above to change your membership status or configuration, including unsubscribing, setting digest-style delivery or disabling delivery altogether (e.g., for a vacation), and so on.

1 0